What is the California Public Records Act?

Useful Resources for California Public Records Act

Recent Rulings on California Public Records Act

201-225 of 260 results

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY VS. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (And Notice Of Motion), Injunctive, And Declaratory Relief For Violations Of The California Public Records Act; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Kelly Aviles; Declaration Of Edward J. Donahue Iii, Exhibits A-L The matter is on calendar for Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Line 1, PETITIONER SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (And Notice Of Motion), Injunctive, And Declaratory Relief For Violations Of The California Public Records Act.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2018

SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

This action is brought pursuant to the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). As recently addressed in City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, "the Civil Discovery Act applies in CPRA proceedings." Id., at 282. However, as noted by plaintiff, "[d]iscovery is not necessarily automatic."

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

This action is brought pursuant to the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). As recently addressed in City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, "the Civil Discovery Act applies in CPRA proceedings." Id., at 282. However, as noted by plaintiff, "[d]iscovery is not necessarily automatic."

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANNA VON HERRMANN VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Attorneys Fees And Costs Pursuant To The California Public Records Act Set for hearing on Monday, December 18, 2017, Line 3, PETITIONER ANNA HERRMANN's Motion For Attorneys Fees And Costs Pursuant To The California Public Records Act Plaintiff Anna von Herrmann's motion for attorney's fees and costs is denied. Ms. von Herrmann is not the prevailing party in this CRPA case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2017

BEN SOTELO VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

In that case, the issues concerned whether a newspaper was entitled to obtain police personnel records under the California Public Records Act and whether the disclosure of those records was governed by Pitchess statutory standards. (Id. at pp. 1416–1431.) In the course of describing the general Pitchess statutory rules, the City of Hemet court noted that generally a party is entitled only to the names of witnesses “so that the seeking party can conduct his own investigation.” (Id. at p. 1425.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2017

CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

California Public Records Act Pursuant to the CPRA (Gov. Code § 6250, et seq.), individual citizens have a right to access government records. In enacting the CPRA, the California Legislature declared that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code, § 6250; see also County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 57, 63.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BRISCOE VS. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

It is hereby ordered that (1) Respondents, City of Huntington Beach and Robin Estanislau, in her official capacity as Huntington Beach City Clerk, disclose the public records they withheld from Petitioner with the following redactions: the applicant’s address, phone numbers, email address, birth date, former names, driver’s license, salary, preferences such as desired salary and preferred shifts, within 20 days; (2) Declaratory Judgment be entered that said Respondents violated the California Public Records

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2017

WANDA JIMENEZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT

In that case, the issues concerned whether a newspaper was entitled to obtain police personnel records under the California Public Records Act and whether the disclosure of those records was governed by Pitchess statutory standards. (Id. at pp. 1416–1431.) In the course of describing the general Pitchess statutory rules, the City of Hemet court noted that generally a party is entitled only to the names of witnesses “so that the seeking party can conduct his own investigation.” (Id. at p. 1425.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2017

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TILE INDUSTRY LABOR MANAGEMENT VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF THE LABOR ET AL

Plaintiffs lump various alleged violations of the California Public Records Act ("CPRA") into one "cause of action" and fail to establish that it should prevail on all of the claims. For example, plaintiffs argue that they requested all settlement documents in Case No. 40-34337 on 12/31/14 and DSLE did not provide the case file until 2/27/17. (Narducci Dec., par. 20(a) (UMF 1-2).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2017

AQUALLIANCE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Frawley Proceeding: Motion to Compel Depositions Tentative Ruling: Denied Petitioner Aqualliance moves for an order compelling Respondent California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to produce for deposition the witnesses most qualified to testify about the steps that DWR took to locate and produce documents responsive to Petitioner’s California Public Records Act request. The court shall deny the motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2017

AQUALLIANCE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Frawley Proceeding: Motion to Compel Depositions Tentative Ruling: Denied Petitioner Aqualliance moves for an order compelling Respondent California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to produce for deposition the witnesses most qualified to testify about the steps that DWR took to locate and produce documents responsive to Petitioner's California Public Records Act request. The court shall deny the motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2017

MICHELLE OLSON VS THE CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: September 7, 2017 BS158621 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner Michelle Olson (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondents City of Long Beach (“City”), Larry Herrera, and Theressa Graham (collectively “Respondents”) to provide unredacted records under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) in response to a document request dated May 12, 2015 which sought information about cellphone tracking and surveillance devices used by City.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CAMPBELL VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

Petitioners Gary Campbell and Collene Campbell's Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to the California Public Records Act is granted. There is no dispute that the record sought, namely the audio recording of the parole hearing, is a public record for the purposes of the Public Records Act ("PRA"). Respondent's argument against disclosure is based upon Govt.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JONATHAN CORBETT VS. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT SET FOR HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017, LINE 9 DEFENDANT STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, as to the third cause of action for violation of the California Public Records Act in plaintiff Jonathan Corbett's first amended Complaint, is treated as a motion to strike because the third cause of action alleges two distinct requests for documents.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2017

FIFTH AVENUE LANDING VS SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER CORPORATION

As set forth below, Defendant's response to the California Public Records Act ("CPRA") request is not sufficient only with regard to the Cushman emails. Procedural Issues A Petition filed, pursuant to the CPRA must be verified by Petitioner. Gov. Code 6259(a). An application for writ review must be made on the verified Petition of the party beneficially interested. Code Civ. Proc. 1069 and 1086. Plaintiff's Complaint initiated this action, but it is not verified.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FIFTH AVENUE LANDING VS SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER CORPORATION

As set forth below, Defendant's response to the California Public Records Act ("CPRA") request is not sufficient only with regard to the Cushman emails. Procedural Issues A Petition filed, pursuant to the CPRA must be verified by Petitioner. Gov. Code 6259(a). An application for writ review must be made on the verified Petition of the party beneficially interested. Code Civ. Proc. 1069 and 1086. Plaintiff's Complaint initiated this action, but it is not verified.

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GOFF VS. PARR

The contours of production and exemption under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), including Govt. Code § 6254(f), do not dictate the scope of discovery in litigation. Marylander v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1119, 1125. In short, information is not immune to discovery simply because it is exempted by Govt. C. 6254 from the disclosure requirements of the CPRA. Shepherd v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 123; see also Marylander v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2017

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA VS. CORDOVA RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT

Frawley Proceeding: Petition and Complaint Tentative Ruling: Granted in Part Petitioner City of Rancho Cordova (City) has filed a petition and complaint seeking to compel Respondent Cordova Recreation & Park District (District) to comply with its duties under the California Public Records Act (Public Records Act). The court shall grant the petition/complaint, in part.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2017

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA VS. CORDOVA RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT

Frawley Proceeding: Petition and Complaint Tentative Ruling: Granted in Part Petitioner City of Rancho Cordova (City) has filed a petition and complaint seeking to compel Respondent Cordova Recreation & Park District (District) to comply with its duties under the California Public Records Act (Public Records Act). The court shall grant the petition/complaint, in part.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2017

WILLIAM L STEWART VS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIF

Conclusion The demurrer is OVERRULED. 1- Petitioner cites the federal Freedom of Information Act, but presumably he meant the California Public Records Act. (Pet. p. 2.) 2- Respondent also cited the Departmental Operations Manual, section 13040.14 of Chapter 1 of Article 15. Respondent has not requested judicial notice of or supplied the court with a copy of the Departmental Operations Manual.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

CITY OF INDUSTRY VS BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP

The California Public Records Act governs the basis for plaintiff’s protection of confidentiality of materials and information.

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

VALORIA BOOKER VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

The ACLU case, however, examined only whether “invoices for work on currently pending litigation sent to the County of Los Angeles by an outside law firm are within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and therefore exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.” (ACLU, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 288.) The Supreme Court held that “the attorney-client privilege does not categorically shield everything in a billing invoice from PRA disclosure.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

POLEQUAPTEWA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

WRIT OF MANDATE The Petitioner Nikishna Polequaptewa Writ of Mandate to prevent respondent The Regents of the University of California from releasing records pertaining to him pursuant to requests under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) (Gov. Code, §§ 6250, et seq.) (i.e., from real party in interest Thomas Peele, the Daily Californian, and the Associated Press) is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2017

ORBISON VS. CITY OF HERCULES

Procedural History Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant Judy Soriano as well as Defendants City of Hercules, Dan Romero, Myrna De Vera, David Biggs, John Patrick Tang, Kristina Griffith, Pedro Jimenez, Gregory Dwyer, and John Delgado (“City Defendants”) on April 7, 2016, alleging claims for (1) intentional interference with prospective business relations; (2) breach of implied contract and quantum meruit; (3) conversion; (4) defamation; (5) violation of California Public Records Act; (6) violation

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

OLIMPIA ARAGON ET AL VS MANGIONE INC ET AL

Finally, LASD’s argument that records of a criminal investigation are prohibited from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6254(f)) is unavailing, because the records being sought here are via civil subpoena and not under the CPRA.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.